The Role of the Academic Reference Librarian in the Learning Commons

University of Nebraska - Lincoln University of Nebraska - Lincoln

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Faculty Publications, UNL Libraries Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Winter 2010

The Role of the Academic Reference Librarian in the Learning The Role of the Academic Reference Librarian in the Learning

Commons Commons

Judith A. Wolfe

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

, [email protected]

Ted Naylor

University of Nebraska - Lincoln

, [email protected]

Jeanetta Drueke

University of Nebraska - Lincoln

, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libraryscience

Part of the Library and Information Science Commons

Wolfe, Judith A.; Naylor, Ted; and Drueke, Jeanetta, "The Role of the Academic Reference Librarian in the

Learning Commons" (2010).

Faculty Publications, UNL Libraries

. 221.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libraryscience/221

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln at

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications, UNL

Libraries by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.

108 Reference & User Services Quarterly

For Your EnrichmEnt

Diane Zabel, Editor

rontline reference librarians purvey their skills in a

variety of reference service models. These range from

the traditional to the tiered to the information com-

mons (IC) to the learning commons (LC). Libraries

might use one pure form of any model, a hybrid model, or a

model in the process of transformation. A few libraries with

space and funding have fully adopted the latest model, the

LC. An examination of transformations to the LC indicates

that frontline reference librarians can to some extent effect

changes in their professional environments.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE ROLE OF THE

REFERENCE LIBRARIAN

From the beginning of librarianship, the role of the reference

librarian has been defined by the patrons’ need for human

mediation.

Reference librarians apply critical-thinking skills,

emotional intelligence, teaching ability, and question analysis

to connect the user with appropriate resources. While some

libraries developed variations (such as tiered models), the

traditional model, involving face-to-face interaction between

a patron and a librarian who answered every type of ques-

tion from one or more multipurpose service points, prevailed

throughout the “paper era.”

By necessity, reference librarians were shackled to the li-

brary and the print collection. Public-access computers and

remote access to data sets (i.e., Dialog) quickly sowed the

seeds for a revolution in reference routines. Dialog search

techniques were only the beginning. Soon, cyberspace was

born. Staying abreast of new technology and upgrading com-

puter skills became an integral part of reference librarians’

duties. In the new medium’s infancy, the reference librarian’s

role evolved to include nurturing and developing this new

electronic “baby.” The concomitant teaching role expanded to

instruction in the use of multiple material formats, the online

public access catalogs (OPACs), and the Internet. As the need

to assist patrons with technical issues grew, the single access

point for all types of assistance sometimes frustrated librarians

and failed their patron.

Libraries sometimes experimented with new types of tiered

models that addressed the need for technical help. At one level,

a general-information desk might be staffed by student assis-

tants, graduate assistants, or staff. Another desk, staffed by spe-

cially trained librarians and paraprofessionals, might provide

technical assistance. Specialists might be designated for word-

processing, spreadsheet, SSPS, Blackboard, RefWorks, and

other software assistance. Subject-specialist librarians might

provide in-depth research assistance, often by appointment.

Judith A. Wolfe, Ted Naylor,

and Jeanetta Drueke, Guest

Columnists

Correspondence concerning this

column should be addressed to Diane

Zabel, Schreyer Business Library, The

Pennsylvania State University, 309

Paterno Library, University Park.

Judith A. Wolfe is the Liaison,

Cataloging, and Metadata Librarian

and Assistant Professor; Ted Naylor

is the Special Projects Librarian and

Assistant Professor of Practice; and

Jeanetta Drueke is the Coordinator

of Instruction and a Professor at

the University of Nebraska–Lincoln

Libraries.

The Role of

the Academic

Reference

Librarian in

the Learning

Commons

volume 50, issue 2 | Winter 2010 109

The Role of the Academic Reference Librarian in the Learning Commons

Instruction sometimes became closely tied to reference ser-

vices. Other libraries maintained a traditional service.

With the number of remote library users rapidly growing,

the need for new reference venues is clear. Reference services

have implemented e-mail, chat, instant messaging (IM), voice

over Internet protocol (VoIP), and text messaging. All of these

new services provide new communication challenges in refer-

ence and instruction.

Whatever the service model, attuned librarians recognize

that the library website, the physical facilities, the print and

electronic collections, reference, and instruction should be

essential and interconnected components.

THE INFORMATION COMMONS

One response to technology was the development of the in-

formation commons (IC). Beagle defines a library IC as a “new

type of physical facility” or section of a library “specifically de-

signed to organize workspace and service delivery around an

integrated digital environment” along with the support tech-

nology.

The physical library space is coordinated to become

an extension of student study areas, and workspaces are orga-

nized to accommodate collaboration. Therefore the physical

commons is designed to incorporate a cluster of access points

to the digital arena. Armed with these access points, trained

staff help users query, navigate, and process information.

In this “functional integration,” some reference librarians

continued to assume the role of general-information provider,

technical expert, referral assistant, point of contact, and help

center. Even more than before, librarians became jacks-of-

all-trades and had insufficient time to master any one trade.

If one envisions the library as two interacting spheres—

the virtual and the physical—the library as interactive system

and the user experience of that system demand attention.

The stage was set for the next new thing. There were, it ap-

peared, many stakeholders in library services. The interactive

system expands to include not just library-based information-

technology specialists, metadata librarians, media specialists,

and bibliographic instruction coordinators, but also campus-

wide technology professionals, instructional designers, and

distance-education coordinators. The evolutionary stream

of social technology blurred the boundaries of print, and the

“functional integration of technology and service delivery to re-

align the library with the rapidly evolving digital environment”

became the order of business.

For some libraries, this order

of business is leading to the next step from the IC to the LC.

FROM INFORMATION COMMONS TO

LEARNING COMMONS

The terms information commons and learning commons may

easily be confused. Bennett, however, defines an LC as a

place that brings

people together not around informally shared interests,

as happens in traditional common rooms, but around

shared learning tasks, sometimes formalized in class

as signments. The core activity of a learning commons

would not be the manipulation and mastery of informa-

tion, as in an information commons, but the collabora-

tive learning by which students turn in formation into

knowledge and sometimes into wisdom.

Libraries often create new LCs during an extensive reno-

vation or new building project, where money is flowing and

new space can be added. Though some might consider the

LC a necessary response to a changing environment, a high-

performance LC requires the luxury of a committed univer-

sity administration and community; a budget big enough to

build, renovate, or reorganize existing reference space; and

the ability to bring together units or groups with disparate

knowledge and culture.

The most visible and highly touted feature of the LC,

in comparison to the IC and other reference models, is the

number and variety of stakeholders both within the library

and within other campus groups and units. Intended to foster

collaboration, communication, and easy access to assistance,

the added physical space might be a new environment for

reference librarians.

THE REFERENCE LIBRARIAN IN THE

DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF

THE LEARNING COMMONS

The frontline reference librarians’ role in initiating, planning,

implementing, and operating LCs is unclear. Scholarly articles

about LCs often focus not on reference librarians but on the

students at the center of the LC or on the other stakeholders,

such as university administrators. While the literature does

not acknowledge the fullness of the reference librarians’ role,

a few pale signs appear.

Reference librarian service on LC planning and imple-

mentation committees does appear to be common. For

example, the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth’s LC

Planning Committee, in its final report, notes that in ad-

dition to the original library representative, “the Library’s

Information Services Department requested that two addi-

tional librarians from their department serve on the commit-

tee.”

In the case of the LC, they write that “evidence-based

information exchanges between librarians and their faculty

and student constituencies continue to fuel collaborative

partnerships.”

Haug, in “Learning Curve: Adapting Library Spaces,”

points to librarians’ observations as the origin of the LC at

Longwood University:

Library staff began observing that groups of students

frequently crowded around a single PC to work on col-

laborative projects. University professors seemed to be

assigning more and more group activities, and library

staff saw that the commons area should be redesigned to

meet the need for more collaborative style workspaces.

110 Reference & User Services Quarterly

For Your EnrichmEnt

Somerville and Brar, in their case study of the library at

California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, note

reference librarian involvement at every stage. In terms of

early recognition of changing environments, they write that

amidst rapid technological change, aggravating financial

uncertainty, and escalating community expectations,

librarians at California Polytechnic . . . Have recog-

nized that nimble responsiveness requires reinven-

tion of library processes, procedures and services. . . .

They understood that this would require changing how

they think and what they think about.

In terms of data collection and implementation of the LC,

they write that “data collection and interpretation requires

sustained face-to-face communication between librarians

and student researchers. . . . The dialogues offered librarians

valuable experiential insights into use constituency perspec-

tives.”

Despite the dearth of literature on the subject, refer-

ence librarian’s contributions are vital to LC’s success, and will

doubtless be a fundamental aspect of the continuing role of

librarians in reference services.

PREPARATION

As many have noted, preparation is everything. In Abraham

Lincoln’s words, “If I had eight hours to chop down a tree,

I’d spend six sharpening my axe.” For reference librarians,

sharpening the axe might translate as

• understanding the institution and its service issues;

• building and advertising his or her unique knowledge of

research, sources, and users;

• being aware of literature and trends;

• communicating with other librarians and visiting other

libraries; and

• creating collaborative working relationships with other

library and campus units.

POSITIONING THE LIBRARY FOR CHANGE

Reference librarians also can help libraries move incremen-

tally toward an LC model. Elements of the LC can be devel-

oped and implemented as space and available resources allow.

These might include adding staff who help students in word

processing and computer skills, hiring student assistants with

specialized computer skills, developing closer relationships

between reference and instruction units, or sharing staff be-

tween reference and media services desks. By making such

smaller changes to service models, libraries can respond to

new user patterns and demands before major institutional

change comes about. Eckel et al. describe a typology of

change in which these incremental steps might be considered

adjustments or isolated change.

Therefore these steps help

meet users’ needs without exerting extensive pressure on the

library. If the library implements a full transformation later,

the pressure on the library might be lower.

CONTRIBUTING EXPERTISE

Deb Carver, director at the University of Oregon, responding

to a reference panel at the Greater Western Library Alliance,

notes that specific changes in a reference operation are less

important than the culture created.

The “fluidity and trust”

of a collaborative and highly communicative environment,

adds Kristine Helbling, a fellow panelist, allow reference ser-

vices to move from a “unit-centric to a library wide operation”

like an LC.

Reference librarians can contribute to an institu-

tion’s dialog about an LC by doing the following:

• preventing wholesale adoption of models that do not fit

patron needs

• helping set appropriate goals and outcomes for the LC

• coordinating the library services with the curriculum

needs

Assisting faculty with “design thinking . . . course goals

and learning objectives,”

according to Sinclair, brings the

reference librarian in line with the concept of the blended

librarian. As described by Bell and Shank, a blended librar-

ian is “an academic librarian who combines the traditional

skill set of librarianship with the information technologist’s

hardware/software skills, and the instructional or educational

designer’s ability to apply technology appropriately in the

teaching-learning process.”

In this model, collaboration is

essential, and “the learning commons may be seen as an ex-

tension of the classroom experience.”

COLLABORATION IS KEY

Implementing the LC model is in many ways similar to set-

ting up a household: it involves restructuring the organiza-

tion, learning new skills, and creating new spaces. Given its

nature, the evolution of an LC will usually require a major

transformational effort by numerous stakeholders. In some

areas, such as the allocation of space or resources, reference

librarians have limited roles to play. For example, they might

perform specific tasks, such as weeding older paper collec-

tions and helping reconfigure existing service points. How

the reference department adjusts and copes with a new space,

however, is a critical component of a successful LC. Refer-

ence librarians can help create an organizational culture that

embraces change, communication, and collaboration.

Reference librarian attitudes and knowledge can enrich

the internal communication and collaboration necessary to

the LC. A positive and robust reference department can serve

as an excellent role model for accepting change and providing

a positive climate of growth in the organization. Reference

librarians possess unique knowledge and experience that can

facilitate the transition to the LC model, and they will most

likely have transferable characteristics that are useful at every

stage of development. In new technology, reference librarians

volume 50, issue 2 | Winter 2010 111

The Role of the Academic Reference Librarian in the Learning Commons

are already working in an environment and discipline in

which technology and knowledge are, to some degree, already

integrated, and they are used to dealing with a diverse array

of patrons, coworkers, and library administrators.

Reference librarians are perfectly positioned to collaborate

with other stakeholders in the development of an LC model.

They operate in integrated virtual and physical worlds, where

the human and the computer work together. If reference

librarians are operating successfully, they already have ongo-

ing dialogues with other units and strong relationships with

individuals in other units. A collaborative culture cannot be

manufactured for the transition to an LC and abandoned

thereafter. Two things are clear: collaboration is important

when developing an LC, and it can be difficult to accomplish.

Furthermore, stakeholders’ ability to communicate across

disciplines is a prerequisite for success. Reference librarians,

along with their research skills, already have the capacity to

facilitate communication between groups through interaction

with diverse patrons.

Space plans generally include a constellation of reference,

instruction, technology, and other offices around a large space

for a computer lab and other services. Often, print reference

collections are downsized or eliminated. It is ironic that the

technology-driven LC brings many reference librarians back

to a more traditional focus on research assistance and infor-

mation provision. In many cases, IT specialists answer nu-

merous technology-related questions, paraprofessionals field

general questions, and reference librarians are on call only for

the rarer research questions and consultations. Referrals from

staff are common and consultations often take place. Trouble-

shooting access issues and revamping reference-interview

processes become the norm in this connected environment.

Collaboration between students and within the library takes

on multiple forms. Assisting in this collaboration poses a new

challenge for the reference librarian: reaching the patron via

the appropriate technology. In adapting to this “fluid envi-

ronment,” the reference librarian might feel the urgency of

meeting new ongoing demands.

Three Portraits of LCs in Action

The West Commons at the Georgia Institute of Technology

has the General Productivity Centre, which includes worksta-

tions, a presentation rehearsal studio, a multimedia studio,

tutors, and two service desks. Stuart wrote about the expan-

sion to an East Commons, which added flexible learning and

relaxing spaces and a café.

Later, the library opened offices

for academic advising, tutoring, computer assistance, and

other campus services. The central desk in the West Com-

mons is staffed by student assistants from the campus’s Office

of Information Technology, who help with software problems

and hardware maintenance. A second Information Services

desk along one side is staffed by librarians and paraprofes-

sionals in newly created information associate positions that

combine reference and technical skills. Stuart notes that

“Information Services staff quickly adjusted to living on the

margin of the West Commons.”

Reference librarian duties

were broadened to include creating events for students and

teaching freshman seminar courses.

At California State University, San Marcos (CSU San Mar-

cos), a new library designed to function as an LC opened in

2004. A reference area is close to public workstations, an

instruction classroom, reference and instruction librarians’

offices, reference and government document collections,

copy services, and an assistive technology lab. After a period

of testing various staffing configurations, two student infor-

mation assistants with special technology training staff the

reference desk. Questions can be referred to on-call librarians

or the library systems staff. The librarians have stated that

the service exceeds student expectations and that the system

frees librarians to work closely with students in individual

consultations and to work closely with faculty on informa-

tion literacy projects.

The University of Massachusetts W. E. B. Du Bois Library

LC includes a café, a writing center, advising and career ser-

vices, an assistive technologies center, and interlibrary loan

service. Technical support and general reference support

staff share a service desk. A separate reference and research

desk staffed by reference librarians with subject specialties

offers more complex or extended in-person help and man-

ages phone, e-mail, and IM services. Many questions can be

answered at both service points, and referrals between the

desks are routine. All staff communicates regularly through

meetings, e-mail, and blogs.

An assessment found that the

Reference and Research Desk was very effective and, in sur-

veys, highly valued by both students and librarians.

Not

only did the reference librarians collaborate to produce this

successful model, but one librarian noted that the model

fostered further “collaboration and information sharing.”

WHAT IS COMING ’ROUND THE BEND? THE

REFERENCE LIBRARIAN’S FUTURE ROLE

The advances in technology have resulted in library users

with different expectations along with more access points

to information. The reference librarian, to compete with

ever evolving virtual media, must now be prepared to join

the Twitter generation. Patrons now often contact reference

librarians via text messaging, e-mail, IM, Facebook, and

Twitter. Reference has become more of a juggling act because

librarians must manage everything from face -to -face contact

to text messaging reference. Here are some suggestions and

predictions in the management of this new phase of reference:

• The university library must advertise what services it of-

fers and what value it adds to the university experience.

The library must overcome the “we don’t need a library—

we have Google” mentality among patrons, especially

within the economic climate of today.

• The reference librarian liaison role will take on even

greater importance through increased interaction with

teaching faculty.

112 Reference & User Services Quarterly

For Your EnrichmEnt

• Library instruction and reference librarians will interact

more closely to develop online resources.

• Reference librarians must be more involved in the devel-

opment of the libraries’ online presence.

• Reference librarians must balance the LC role while still

maintaining the more traditional services and collections.

• Reference librarians must also be well versed in the tech-

nology students are using, such as IM, mobile devices,

and social networking.

• Communication and collaboration are key elements that

must be fostered and respected at all levels. The cultural

environment is an important consideration in any new

service, and one must have other stakeholders on their

side to have an effective program.

•

Reference librarians must increase and maintain effective-

ness through access to training and the time to learn and

digest new skills.

• Reference librarians must have a focus on building and

sustaining effective training and cross-training programs.

Sodt lists six areas in which “2.0 reference librarians”

might require training: customer service, social network-

ing and collaboration, instruction, collection develop-

ment, website development, and reference.

•

Student-assistant training will be more critical as students

take on a greater role in the LC.

• As funding diminishes because of the currently grim eco-

nomic environment, reference librarians must learn to do

more with less in terms of adding or enhancing services.

• Reference librarians, despite the advances in technology,

must remain focused on their patrons.

ASSESSMENT

Reference librarians and other stakeholders must assume that

in the transition to an LC, mistakes will happen, challenges

will continue to exist, collaboration and communication must

continue, continued assessments must be performed, and

adjustments must be made. For example, CSU San Marcos

abandoned a special research consultation office because stu-

dents simply met with librarians in their offices.

Thompson

and Sonntag suggest that libraries plan for flexibility and

change, and they bravely point out their own institution’s

failure to foresee how the new reference area would change

patron–librarian interactions.

In addition, the LC will continue to evolve in response to

environments that remain beyond libraries’ control. The LC

and its staff will likely at some point be, in military parlance,

OBE (overcome/overtaken by events), in which the “initial

solution is rendered useless by unexpected events, raising a

need for a different solution.”

Reference librarians can participate in the ongoing

change using the same knowledge and skills they brought

to the original transition to an LC. Mountfield reports that

University of Auckland librarians contribute to assessment

with “periodic appraisal of services, activities and opera-

tion.”

Mountifield also points out that librarian research

into educational trends and new technology can point the

way to new developments.

CONCLUSION

Reference librarians have fundamental skills and knowl-

edge that are applicable to all current and future reference

models. Reference librarians have a major role to play in the

planning and implementation of the LC and in the day-to-day

patron interaction within the LC. By facilitating high levels of

communication and collaboration between stakeholders, refer-

ence librarians help ensure the LC will meet the high expecta-

tions and demands of the modern user. The reference librarian

will continue to play a vital role in the synthesis of information

into knowledge and knowledge into wisdom, which supports

the goal of the LC and the overall mission of higher education.

It will be interesting to see how the new concept of the

blended librarian affects the LC model. The two are currently

contradictory: the LC brings together librarians and staff with

specific skills whereas in the blended librarian model the ref-

erence librarian is expected to be expert in all areas. Accord-

ing to Bell and Shank, “The concept of the blended librarian is

largely built on creating a movement that will encourage and

enable academic librarians to evolve into a new role in which

the skills and knowledge of instructional design are wedded

to our existing library and information technology skills.”

However the reference model evolves, librarians must be able

to communicate, collaborate, and change. As Sinclair remarks

regarding the blended library, “Librarians who can adapt to

the changing information landscape quickly and easily will

be sought after.”

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors thank Michael Cartwright, professor emeritus

at Chadron State College, for his reading of this manuscript

before submission.

References

1. Kay Ann Cassell, Developing Reference Collections and Services in an

Electronic Age: A How-To-Do-It Manual for Librarians (New York:

Neal-Schuman, 1999): 47.

2. Donald Beagle, “Conceptualizing an Information Commons,” The

Journal of Academic Librarianship 25, no. 2 (1999): 82.

3. Ibid., 83.

4. Scott Bennett, Libraries Designed for Learning (Washington, D.C.:

Council on Library and Information Resources, 2003): 38.

5. Magali Carrera, Donna Massano, and Sharon Weiner, UMass

Dartmouth LC Planning Committee, Final Report, February 2008

http://library.umassd.edu/libraryinfo/learningcommons/LC_

FinalReportFeb2008.pdf (accessed Aug. 26, 2010): 1.

6. Ibid., 9.

7. James C. Haug, “Learning Curve: Adapting Library Workspaces,”

Educause Quarterly 31, no. 4 (2008): 70.

8. Mary M. Somerville and Navjit Brar, “Collaborative Co-

Design: The Cal Poly Digital Teaching Library User Centric

Approach,” http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent

.cgi?article=1031&context=lib_fac (accessed Aug. 26, 2010): 2.

volume 50, issue 2 | Winter 2010 113

The Role of the Academic Reference Librarian in the Learning Commons

9. Ibid., 5.

10. Peter Eckel et al., Taking Charge of Change: A Primer for Colleges

and Universities (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Educa-

tion, 1999): 16.

11. Greater Western Library Association, Webcast on Reinventing

Reference, 2009, http://mulibraries.missouri.edu/media/gwla.htm

(accessed Oct. 5, 2009).

12. Ibid.

13. Bryan Sinclair, “The Blended Librarian in the Learning Commons:

New Skills for the Blended Library,” College & Research Libraries

News 70, no. 9 (2009): 504.

14. Steven Bell and John Shank, “The Blended Librarian: A Blueprint

for Redesigning the Teaching and Learning Role of Academic

Librarians,” College & Research Libraries News 65, no. 7 (July/Aug.

2004): 374.

15. Sinclair, “The Blended,” 505.

16. Donald Beagle, The Information Commons Handbook (New York:

Neal-Schuman, 2006): 50.

17. Crit Stuart, “Improving Student Life: Learning and Support

through Collaboration, Integration and Innovation,” in Learn-

ing Commons: Evolution and Collaborative Essentials, ed. Barbara

Schader (Oxford, UK: Chandos, 2008): 325–57.

18. Ibid., 341.

19. Susan Thompson and Gabriela Sonntag, “Building for Learning:

Synergy of Space, Technology and Collaboration,” in Learn-

ing Commons: Evolution and Collaborative Essentials, ed. Barbara

Schader (Oxford: Chandos, 2008): 132–34.

20. Elizabeth Fitzpatrick, Anne C. Moore, and Beth W. Lang, “Refer-

ence Librarians at the Reference Desk in a LC: A Mixed Methods

Evaluation,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 34, no. 3 (2008):

231–38.

21. Ibid., 237–38.

22. Ibid., 237.

23. Jill Sodt, “Training the 2.0 Reference Librarian,” Info Career Trends

(June 1, 2008), http://lisjobs.com/career_trends/?p=23 (accessed

Nov. 23, 2009).

24. Thompson and Sonntag, “Building for Learning,” 177–272.

25. Ibid.

26. Wikipedia, “Overcome by Events (OBE),” Aug. 31, 2009, http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overcome_By_Events (accessed Oct. 16,

2009).

27. Hester Mountifield, “The Information Commons at the Univer-

sity of Auckland: Improving Student Life, Learning and Support

through Co-location, Collaboration, Integration and Innovation,”

in Learning Commons: Evolution and Collaborative Essentials, ed.

Barbara Schader (Oxford: Chandos, 2008): 398.

28. Bell and Shank, “The Blended Librarian,” 373.

29. Sinclair, “The Blended Librarian in the Learning Commons,” 506.